Manafort's former son-in-law cuts plea deal, to cooperate with government - sources

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The former son-in-law of Paul Manafort, the one-time chairman of President Donald Trump’s campaign, has cut a plea deal with the Justice Department that requires him to cooperate with other criminal probes, two people with knowledge of the matter said.

Last edited by John Q. Public on Thu May 17, 2018 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Link not required

They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

"The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said…

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

2.Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report

...the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month....By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it.

3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia

In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.

No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?

4. Four Trump Affiliates Spied On

Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign.

5. Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy

The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

6. More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant

From leaks of personally identifying information to the Washington Post, we’ve learned that this source works with the FBI and CIA, and is a U.S. citizen.

In The New York Times, additional information about a government informant leaked, including that the source met with Papadopoulos and Page to collect information. The information on an alleged source in the Trump campaign is so sensitive they can’t give it to Congress, but they can leak it to friendly press outlets like the Post and Times.

7. Ignorance of Basic Facts

One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”

Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador.

The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.

Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page ‘had previously been recruited by Russian spies.’It’s also inaccurate to say this was “election meddling,” necessarily. Clinton had deleted 30,000 emails that were housed on her private server even though she was being investigated for mishandling classified information. This could be viewed as destruction of evidence. She claimed the emails had to do with yoga.

8. Insurance: How Does It Work?

The article says Trump thought this “insurance policy” referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.

Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.

9. Eavesdropping, Not Spying, And Other Friendly Claims

“[P]rosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page,” The New York Times writes, making the wiretapped spying on an American citizen sound almost downright pleasant. When Comey briefs Trump only on the rumor about the prostitutes and urination, we’re told “he feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.” Reporters don’t ask, much less answer, why someone fearing a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation would go out of his way to create an extreme caricature of a J. Edgar Hoover situation.

10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence

This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.

They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

FYI - cutting and pasting reams of rhetoric from a conservative rag doesn't make your case for you...

Your feeble attempts to influence perceptions with creative buzzwords is laughable and just makes you just look silly. Tell me, when police are investigating possible criminal behavior, are they "spying" on the suspects as well?

"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."George Will

Yeah, it was lengthy, but how do you do a post on "Ten Takeaways from ..." without posting ten things? (Not all of them made my case, either). I did give proper credit to them, and if you click on the link, you'll find the story was about four time longer than what I posted.

Well, there's always, like, "your own words". You might even find that it can help you filter out the parts that are total crap - of which there was a lot. And you might realize while you're writing that "surveil" and "spy" have pretty much the same meaning.

Funny thing about copying and pasting - you can usually summarize more quickly and more succinctly. And your post will be more readable and more interesting. And most of the time your summary will include points that the C&P would leave out.

Ferinstance - Wabash C&P'ed a paragraph from an article about Manafort's former son-in-law copping a plea deal with the Justice Department. I just posted the same thing he did in half a sentence. If I'd read the article and posted my thoughts on it, it probably would have included what he'd been charged with, why he copped a plea, what his involvement was, how the Justice Dept. became interested in him, what the significance is and maybe what his name is. The C&P didn't include any of that and the response was "Ho hum. Another C&P." A short summary probably wouldn't have taken any longer to type, it probably would have said more and it might even have gotten a response. C&P's are pretty boring, really.

1. A special prosecutor was appointed to prosecute what crime? Normally, a prosecutor gets into the act if there first is a crime to prosecute. This prosecutor was basically told to find a crime to prosecute.

2. What does a 2005 bank fraud case have to do with the 2016 election?

3. The unequal treatment under the law examples floating around, involving the Clintons, Flynn, the poor sailor who was imprisoned for taking 5 photos inside a submarine, (while Clinton gets exonerated before even being interviewed, about thousands of unprotected e-mails).

1. Possible collusion with Russia and under the mandate any other possible crimes.2. See #1, Trump getting involved with Manafort, Papadouplis, Paige and Cohen should at least make you question Trumps judgement.3. Which had no impact on the action of Trump and his associates.4. Should possible crimes not be investigated regardless of popularity?